Tunisia and Egypt play dominoes?

[Enoch]

Iranian government is the most dangerous in the world (well China is a lot more powerful so I suppose that's arguable) and it is because of their Islamist ideology. It is far from secular. Also there is no such thing as an islamist democracy, islamism is anti-democratic at its core. After reading various sources the last few days, there's virtually no doubt the MB will a major part of any coalition government. The only question that remains is how much and for how long the army and the other factions will be willing and able to restrain them.

 

Don't look at the public governmental proclamations-- look at who owns everything worth owning in the society. The Revolutionary Guard does depend on the clerics for popular support (which comes largely from the poorer element of society, where they're still very popular, as opposed to the more urban middle class youth who comprised most of the recent electoral protests), but they're firmly in control from a foreign/economic/military policy point of view.

 

Modern Iran isn't anti-Western because it is islamist. It's anti-Western because the West (specifically, the U.S. and Britain) spent about 80 years propping up oppressive strongman rulers. The political stance of the mullahs became what it is and became popular because Iranians hated America, and they had pretty good reason for doing so. The bigger risk to U.S. interests-- in terms of (badness of outcome)*(likelihood of occurring)-- isn't that Egypt will turn out like Iran in 1979, it's that Egypt will turn out like Iran in 1953. (Refresher: that's when a coup with CIA support ousted a popularly elected prime minister who had eroded power from the U.S./G.B.-backed, dictatorial Shah, largely to save the proto-BP's interests in the Gulf from nationalization.)

 

And you're also painting a lot of people with the same brush. I'm no friend of the Muslim Brotherhood, but they're not Taliban-level violent and insular. (They've renounced violence as a political tool, and have been a prominent enemy of Al Qaeda for decades.)

 

Edit: added the quote, just to make sure that Gorth's post and the page-break don't confuse matters.

Edited February 1, 2011 by Enoch

[Wrath of Dagon]

They're not an enemy of Al Qaeda, any statements to that effect is part of their deception. And why would the Iranian government hate us for supporting a repressive ruler when they themselves are 10 times as repressive? It was Khomeini himself who said "Let Iran burn so long as Islam triumphs!" Btw, some people were trying to prove that Khomeini was moderate in the same terms as you before he took power. Also I just had a thread a couple months ago where the leader of Egyptian MB declared Jihad against the US. I have to think that you're just not well informed about fundamentalist Islam and their ultimate goals.

[Enoch]

They're not an enemy of Al Qaeda, any statements to that effect is part of their deception.

See chapter 7 of this .pdf (2.5 MB), a publication of the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point.

 

And why would the Iranian government hate us for supporting a repressive ruler when they themselves are 10 times as repressive?

Is it really hard to understand why the citizens of a proud nation would resent a foreign power for propping up their authoritarian government? Or how a homegrown despotism can play on the insecurities of a people and maintain popularity by shifting focus to the struggle against a foreign power?

 

It was Khomeini himself who said "Let Iran burn so long as Islam triumphs!" Btw, some people were trying to prove that Khomeini was moderate in the same terms as you before he took power.

"Some people"? Who? And how is what they say relevant?

 

Also I just had a thread a couple months ago where the leader of Egyptian MB declared Jihad against the US. I have to think that you're just not well informed about fundamentalist Islam and their ultimate goals.

If only I had listened to "some people" and read that "thread a couple months ago," I could be informed, too!

 

 

Gorth hit on the bottom-line. This movement simply isn't about fundamentalist Islam. The people in the streets aren't there to air religion-related grievances. Of all the problems that mainstream Egyptians have with their government, its attitude towards religion isn't one of them. Which means that, of all the likely changes that are to come in Egyptian society and government, significant changes to the religious posture of the government is not likely to be one of them. The Muslim Brotherhood has expressed support for the protests (as would any opposition party banned by the current regime), but they're hardly at the front line on the barricades. The influence of islamists is something to keep an eye on in whatever leadership emerges after the dust settles, but it's a manageable concern that can be dealt with when and if it arises.

Edited February 1, 2011 by Enoch

[Bos_hybrid]

image

 

 

That can't be real.

Edited February 1, 2011 by Bos_hybrid

[Calax]

image

 

 

That can't be real.

If it is, Jon Stewart will CERTAINLY catch it. It's to stupid NOT to catch.

[Bos_hybrid]

image

 

 

That can't be real.

If it is, Jon Stewart will CERTAINLY catch it. It's to stupid NOT to catch.

 

And/or Stephen Colbert.

 

Now I really hope it's real.

[Walsingham]

WoD, I think if you take a deep breath and reflect on what you're saying then you'll realise a dignified retraction is in order on a couple of points.

 

1. Enoch's covered most of it already.

 

2. For a chap who is opposed to violent islamofascists it's rather amusing that you're running around spreading a key plank in their propaganda: that democracy and Islam can't coexist.

 

3. Describing the IRGC as a bunch of one trick religious whackjobs is waaaaaay off base. The reality is that they are very much involved in all kinds of fun stuff, including property and drug dealing. Not that I know a massive amount more than what one can read in print.

 

~~

 

As a slight aside I thought it was interesting that wikileaks also 'revealed' that Iran really has been behind terrorism - thousands of deaths by terrorism - in Iraq. But oddly there have been few retractions by people who asserted it was all lies by the Bush Whitehouse and that really Iran was all peaceful and lovely and misunderstood. Although that may be too far off topic.

[Nepenthe]

As a slight aside I thought it was interesting that wikileaks also 'revealed' that Iran really has been behind terrorism - thousands of deaths by terrorism - in Iraq. But oddly there have been few retractions by people who asserted it was all lies by the Bush Whitehouse and that really Iran was all peaceful and lovely and misunderstood. Although that may be too far off topic.

I've never seen anyone claim that (Iran hasn't been up to its neck in the current Iraq situation). In fact, I'd say that it was another one of those "0 surprise" things from wikileaks, which is why it hasn't lead to commentary.

[213374U]

2. For a chap who is opposed to violent islamofascists it's rather amusing that you're running around spreading a key plank in their propaganda: that democracy and Islam can't coexist.

I suppose you could say that idea is wrong and then point to the fact that we have perfectly well-adjusted "Christian democratic" parties elsewhere (ahem, gay rights and abortion...), but to what degree do Islamist parties accept the legitimacy of a democracy to overrule Qur'anic tenets? (not rhetorical, btw)

[Calax]

Samer Sheheta gave a pretty good analysis of the situation on Cobert.

[Wrath of Dagon]

2. For a chap who is opposed to violent islamofascists it's rather amusing that you're running around spreading a key plank in their propaganda: that democracy and Islam can't coexist.

I said Islamists and democracy can't coexists, there's a difference. Islamists however do use the rhetoric of democracy so long as it helps them come to power.

 

A couple of quotes from Enoch's link:

 

The challenge posed to al‐Qa

Edited February 1, 2011 by Wrath of Dagon

[Calax]

And yet the director of the Center for Contemporary Arab Studies in Georgetown says "Support the 83 million egyptians rising up against Mubarak".

 

As to the Brotherhood, if they were so "in step" with Al Queda then why did Ayman al-Zawahiri leave it and move to Al Queda? And they've been suppoting Al Baradi (I think that's the name) and wouldn't be able to go after Israel like some seem to think because of the same reason that Mubarak is now having to leave, 83 million egyptions who've all lost SOME family member in the various wars.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Mubarak will probably announce he's not running for re-election in September: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/48613.html Apparently CNN is also reporting that. Probably the best that can be done at this point.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Mubarak confirmed he won't run for re-election. Here's an interesting article, mostly about the history of Iranian revolution: http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailybeast/12180_e...G93dGhldXN3aWxs

[Walsingham]

And yet the director of the Center for Contemporary Arab Studies in Georgetown says "Support the 83 million egyptians rising up against Mubarak".

 

As to the Brotherhood, if they were so "in step" with Al Queda then why did Ayman al-Zawahiri leave it and move to Al Queda? And they've been suppoting Al Baradi (I think that's the name) and wouldn't be able to go after Israel like some seem to think because of the same reason that Mubarak is now having to leave, 83 million egyptions who've all lost SOME family member in the various wars.

 

Very interesting question. My answer would be along the lines of wanting to be master in his own house. Also about setting up a markedly different 'brand'.

[Darth InSidious]

Fair elections, should they ever be conducted, will certainly allow hardline-islamist interests to gain more influence in Egypt than they had previously, but the likelihood of an outright takeover seems quite slim, and islamists with legitimate parliamentary representation tend to be less ornery and violent than islamists being oppressed by a U.S.-backed dictator.

The last time the Muslim Brotherhood were allowed to run in elections was for the lower house elections in about 2005. They won 88 out of 160 seats. And that was with the NDP and Mubarak's policies toward them in place. A slim likelihood, you say? The Muslim Brotherhood, through social welfare programmes, enjoy massive support amongst the working classes and at present there is no viable third party in Egypt. This is the point: It's an either-or between the status quo and a Muslim Brotherhood-run, Islamised, radicalised, anti-Western, anti-Israeli Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood may be pro-democracy now, but as one commentator put it, that may well be an attitude of "one man, one vote, one time". Because one time is all they may need.

 

My core point is that I think the risks of Egypt going hardcore-islamist are distant, easily overwhelmed by the overall benefits of democratic reform.

Isn't the entire point of the unrest and the frustration of the people, that they are fed up with "Old Men" regimes?

 

You can suppress people for only so long and then corruption and nepotism will eventually create popular uprisings. The worst thing that could happen in Egypt right now is probably that Mohamed ElBaradei got into a position of power, because frankly, he seems like an oportunist that just wants Mubaraks job.

ElBaradei would make a popular martyr for the cause of democracy, so no. Of course, if he survived there would be a bigger problem. An opportunist? Undoubtedly. But who in all this isn't?

 

I'm no friend of the Muslim Brotherhood, but they're not Taliban-level violent and insular. (They've renounced violence as a political tool, and have been a prominent enemy of Al Qaeda for decades.)

 

Edit: added the quote, just to make sure that Gorth's post and the page-break don't confuse matters.

We have no idea what the MB will do in power. Words are all fine and dandy, but it is still an Islamist group which has a proven track record for violence, and its avowed aims have not changed. See WoD's point about their intentions.

 

For the record, I don't for a moment believe the Brotherhood are behind this protest, nor do I begrudge the Egyptian people their grievances with Mubarak. But the fact is that had Mubarak stepped down, he would have handed the country to the Brotherhood. And that, despite commentary to the contrary, would have benefited only one group of people.

[Walsingham]

I'd like to remind people, in case anyone forgot, that i've been saying something like this was inevitable. 100,000 new jobless young men every year spells instability, I don't care where.

[213374U]

I'd like to remind people, in case anyone forgot, that i've been saying something like this was inevitable. 100,000 new jobless young men every year spells instability, I don't care where.

ORLY?

[Enoch]

Fair elections, should they ever be conducted, will certainly allow hardline-islamist interests to gain more influence in Egypt than they had previously, but the likelihood of an outright takeover seems quite slim, and islamists with legitimate parliamentary representation tend to be less ornery and violent than islamists being oppressed by a U.S.-backed dictator.

The last time the Muslim Brotherhood were allowed to run in elections was for the lower house elections in about 2005. They won 88 out of 160 seats. And that was with the NDP and Mubarak's policies toward them in place. A slim likelihood, you say? The Muslim Brotherhood, through social welfare programmes, enjoy massive support amongst the working classes and at present there is no viable third party in Egypt. This is the point: It's an either-or between the status quo and a Muslim Brotherhood-run, Islamised, radicalised, anti-Western, anti-Israeli Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood may be pro-democracy now, but as one commentator put it, that may well be an attitude of "one man, one vote, one time". Because one time is all they may need.

There's a lot that isn't known about the political preferrences of Egyptian voters, as there hasn't ever been a meaningful election where all aspects of policy were in question (i.e., that didn't have a Mubarak or a Sadat or whoever behind the scenes), and the Mubarak regime has even gone so far as to oppress any political opinion research. I don't think that anything can be said with much certainty with regard to the results of a possibly-free election in the near future. And it's quite clear that the current impetus for change is not based in religious or foreign-policy concerns.

 

But, as none of us are actually on the ground in Egypt or (I'm assuming) in-touch with people with a deep hands-on understanding of its internal demographics and politics, it comes down to who you trust. And nearly all of the "OMG teh Muslim Brotherhood" commentary is coming from people who are deeply invested in building them up as a bogeyman to scare their audience, starting with Mubarak himself. That's a good reason in my book to approach that view with some pretty hefty skepticism.

 

And, lastly, it's not as if Western influence starts and stops with the decision of whether ol' Hosni should be overthrown or not. Whoever is ruling the country 6 months from now is going to be very interested in continuing to receive the billions in American military and development aid that currenty flows into Egypt. And in Western trade ties, in fighting Somali piracy, etc., etc.

[Monte Carlo]

At the end of the day Israel had two Muslim 'allies' left, and I use the word allies in a regional context - i.e. not actively plotting against her. They were Egypt and Turkey.

 

Turkey got the AK party and Attaturk's secular dream is dead. Then you had the flotilla. So that's Turkey out. Now I agree the MB is a bogeyman, a turnip ghost, but even moderate Arab states are antipathetic to Israel. It's the way it is. Imagine (and I'm being optimistic) that you get a reasonably moderate government where the extent of religious influence is analagous to the AK party in Turkey. That's another tick in the 'Not Very Favourable to Israel' column.

 

What does Israel have to do? Er, spend squillions on restructuring her military and re-defending her Western borders. Israel's numerous enemies are emboldened. And so on.

 

Of course, it doesn't mean that Egyptians must suffer the ignominy of a totalitarian state just so international policy analysts can sleep safely in their beds at night, but in reality that's where we were with Mubarak.

 

As for the Islam / Democracy argument, well hyperoble rules the roost on both sides. But for a Muslim the secular and the divine are indivisible. The Koran is as much a political as religious tract. I've said it before on this forum, the 'Render unto God what is God's and Caesar what is Caesar's' moment never happened in Islam. This isn't pejorative, this is simply the truth. Try and look at it through Muslim eyes, the idea that religion has to have some sort of influence or say in political discourse.

 

Turkey is a relatively stable, democratic country. It has internal tensions that flow from a religious dimension in it's politics. This is probably the best we can hope for in Egypt.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Turkey is a relatively stable, democratic country. It has internal tensions that flow from a religious dimension in it's politics.

They're working on it though. Anyway, Turkey is a lot more West oriented and has an actual democratic/secular tradition not to mention a better economy than Egypt, so direct comparisons are difficult.

[Zoraptor]

Turkey got the AK party and Attaturk's secular dream is dead.

[citation needed]

 

Then you had the flotilla.

Israel had effectively told the Turks to go four-asterisk themselves well prior to that. Pretty dumb, and probably a consequence of having Avigdor L* in the Foreign Ministry, since Turkey simply does not need Israel. Not that it would have mattered long term due to the flotilla but it was hardly one way traffic in the insult flinging prior to that.

 

But for a Muslim the secular and the divine are indivisible [..] This isn't pejorative, this is simply the truth

You could probably have a good argument with that guy who was talking about Ataturk's "secular dream" earlier.

 

*That mere fact is a **** you to Israel's neighbours. Read some of his policies then compare to those of the AK. One's certainly more extreme than the other, and it ain't Kalashnikov.

[pmp10]

As for the Islam / Democracy argument, well hyperoble rules the roost on both sides. But for a Muslim the secular and the divine are indivisible. The Koran is as much a political as religious tract. I've said it before on this forum, the 'Render unto God what is God's and Caesar what is Caesar's' moment never happened in Islam.

And when exactly has such a moment happened elsewhere?

[Orogun01]

As for the Islam / Democracy argument, well hyperoble rules the roost on both sides. But for a Muslim the secular and the divine are indivisible. The Koran is as much a political as religious tract. I've said it before on this forum, the 'Render unto God what is God's and Caesar what is Caesar's' moment never happened in Islam.

And when exactly has such a moment happened elsewhere?

Separation of church and state? The enlightenment age, sounds familiar?

[Walsingham]

I'd like to remind people, in case anyone forgot, that i've been saying something like this was inevitable. 100,000 new jobless young men every year spells instability, I don't care where.

ORLY?

 

Then in the words of my sister: sucks to be you.

 

To move on to Monte, don't you think you're being a bit blinkered? Religion in general has a political connotation. It sets out a vision of who we are, and what our purpose is, and how to maximise ourselves. If anyone from any religion believes that strongly it's going to influence their political behaviour.

 

Not much has been made in this thread of the outrage many Egyptians have shown for terror attacks. The ones in my mind are the recent church attacks, and the attacks on tourists in Alexandria. Actions designed to provoke and glalvanise, but which seem just as profoundly to divide without altering the religious convictions of anyone concerned.

 

You're also ignoring the fact that the parents of our nice young jihadists (at least anecdotally, viz The Islamistby Ed Hussain) were strongly in favour of a personal spiritual Islam.

 

Taking those two things together I have argued, and still argue that the MB are just fascists in beards rather than coloured shirts. Rootless and feckless young men, and inadequate older men, looking for a way to walk tall on the faces of others. Tempered for good measure with some cod-Marxism if memory serves.